Weeds cost farmers billions of dollars annually in crop losses and in the expense of keeping the weeds under control. The losses caused by weeds in agricultural production environments include decrease in crop yield, reduced crop quality, increased irrigation costs, increased harvesting costs, decreased land value, injury to livestock, and crop damage from insects and diseases harbored by these weeds.
Chemical herbicides have provided an effective method of weed control in the past. However, the public has become concerned about the amount of chemicals applied to the food that they consume, to the land on which they live, and to the ground water which they use. Stringent restrictions on the use and development of new herbicides and the elimination of some effective herbicides from the market place have limited economical and effective means for controlling costly weed problems.
A problem has been identified after years of use of chemical herbicides on commercial agricultural land, i.e., the lack of control of certain weeds has allowed these weeds to take over the areas where, without the use of chemical herbicides, they were excluded by more hardy weeds. Removal of the more competitive weeds with chemical herbicides has left an ecological void that has been filled by the less competitive weeds that are resistant to the herbicides. Weeds that were of minor importance at one time have spread rapidly throughout the areas where they are found and are now considered major weed problems. In addition to the inadequacy of control of all weeds, chemicals also can damage the crop plants, sometimes injure nontarget organisms in the environment, and can leave undesirable residues in water and harvested products and carry-over in subsequent crops.
Microbial herbicides are plant pathogens which are effective, when used according to the process disclosed herein, in controlling weeds or other undesirable vegetation without adversely affecting the growth and yield of the desired field crop. The composition of a microbial herbicide includes spores or cells of the plant pathogen or any portion of the organism that is capable of infecting the weed. The use of microbial herbicides is becoming an increasingly important alternative to chemical herbicides. This importance is accompanied by the issuance of several patents for microbial herbicides and their use. Some of these patents, by way of illustration, are as follows: U.S. Pat. No. 3,849,104 (control of northern jointvetch with Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Penz. aeschynomene); U.S. Pat. No. 3,999,973 (control of prickly sida [teaweed] and other weeds with Colletotrichum malvarum); U.S. Pat. No. 4,162,912 (control of milkweed vine with Araujia mosaic virus); U.S. Pat. No. 4,263,036 (control of Hydrilla verticillata with Fusarium roseum Culmorum); U.S. Pat. No. 4,390,360 (control of sicklepod, showy crotalaria, and coffee senna with Alternaria cassiae); and U.S. Pat. No. 4,419,120 (control of prickly sida, velvetleaf, and spurred anoda with fungal pathogens); U.S. Pat. No. 4,775,405 (control of Florida beggarweed with a mixture of Colletotrichum truncatum and chemical herbicides); and U.S. Pat. No. 4,776,873 (control of sicklepod with a mixture of Alternaria cassiae and a chemical herbicide).
We have discovered that mixtures of Colletotrichum coccodes and certain chemical herbicides, are synergistic in their activity when applied to the foliage of the host weed of C. coccodes. This synergy will greatly increase the value of C. coccodes by reducing the amount of C. coccodes applied, and reducing the environmental limitations of C. coccodes. At the Weed Science Society of America meeting in Feb. 2-4, 1988, we disclosed the synergy between C. coccodes and the chemical herbicides fomesafen, dicamba, 2,4-D, and AC 263,499.